1. Genre

Gonzo genre shall be defined here as science fantasy; where science fantasy means a blissfully incongruous mix of scifi and fantasy elements strictly for purposes of awesomerization

Examples: nearly every major fantasy campaign world developed circa 1980 (Arduin, Detroit Gaming Center-era Rifts, early Palldium FRPG I guess, bit of Glorantha?, Tekumel, Wilderlands...I'm forgetting stuff here...)

Gonzo genre must be sharply distinguished from 1990+ genre mashfests. Feng Shui is a 1990s game. Publication dates to the contrary, Rifts is a 1980s gonzo game. Magic trains to the contrary, Eberron is not a gonzo setting.

Lords of Creation: as an ostentatiously designed gonzo game, LoC may mark an early moment of gonzo genre self-reflexivity, when fantasy RPGs increasingly dropped the sci, and sci games increasing dropped the fantasy.

2. Attitude

Gonzo gaming attitude (GGA) shall be defined here as "simultaneously taking yourself and your character seriously and not." Litmus test: You care for your character.

Therefore, GGA must be sharply distinguished from "beer & pretzel" games, in which you do not.

Hypothesis: Rifts is frequently misunderstood as a beer & pretzel game.

Follow-up hypothesis: GGA died when RPGs became (im)mature. V:tM is the mortal enemy of GGA. Eberron is its infantilization. As such, V:tM and Eberron are the two halves of a totality to which they however do not add up.

I feel that Gonzo is an additude. Any game (for the most part) can be played in a gonzo fashion. There are games that lend themselves more to a gonzo game. (LoC, Rifts, and etc) But its really a shared mindset and attitude of the group that makes it gonzo.

Where does Alternity fit in the genre scheme? It doesn't seem like it's just a genre mash-up.

What makes Eberron not gonzo?  I don't necessarily disagree, I just can't put my finger precisely on what makes the setting not work.  Is it that it tries to hard to integrate the essential incompatibilities?

Eberron actually takes itself very seriously as a post-war fantasy. It's kind of a strike against it, really. It's treatment of magic is very.. mundane. Magic isn't really magic in Eberron, it is technology.

If you read the Dreaming Dark books which kinda describe Eberron you can see just how serious Keith Baker kinda envisioned it to be.

Attitude, but best served by genre.

Eberron is either gonzo or noir, can't really mix those two. (Proofs to the contrary gladly accepted)

EC is definitely gonzo. Dunno 'bout Talislanta...

Eberron = gonzo simulated, plus shiny toys for kids (Warforged).

Encounter Critical = gonzo facsimilized.

Hypothesis: while gonzo attitudes may survive, actual gonzo RPGs that are neither simulations nor facsimiles nor re-editions haven't been published in forever.

Thus, if gonzo is an attitude--a gaming style--then it is a historically specific one. It had its time and has been on the wane for a long time now.

Proof: EC. Facsimilization of a (lost) original implies historical reflexivity, which implies a chasm between the present of the facsimile and the past of the original. One does not facsimilize that which is alive in the present.

Reasons for said waning: (complex)

One thing's for sure--

Q: Is gonzo "incoherent"?

A: FUCK YEAH

Quote from: PierceOne does not facsimilize that which is alive in the present."

A good point, but it doesn't describe the whole phenomenon.  I can (and do) run gonzo games without much in the way of reflection or irony.  I can turn it up for ironic smirks, but the baseline is brainless gonzo.

Erm, I wouldn't say that EC replicates a specific "gonzo" attitude. It's just a parody of some the more immature and amateuerish productions -- not _intentionally_ gonzo. What's been lost in the dread mire of history is just science-fantasy, which has seen better days.

Minor point: not sure which aesthetic is being picked out here. Here's where I'd look for what I'd call 'gonzo':

The default gonzo campaigns: Arduin, Wilderlands of High Fantasy. To a lesser degree, Greyhawk and Blackmoor. The SenZar world, for sure. Rifts, yes; Lords of Creation, yes, but with some reservations (though I really loved playing that game).

Super-gonzo cleaned up and made nice: Forgotten Realms.

Exalted's Creation seems like a clear candidate for Gonzo even though I wouldn't touch a white wolf game with your dice.

Tekumel: has the gonzo elements in spades but except for a few bits of oddness (the restaurant at the end of the universe...er, college of undying sorcerers) has an internal cohesion not supported by any of the other settings mentioned. This makes me less inclined to call it gonzo.

Glorantha: problematic, has the gonzo, but is using it differently, and again there's a sort of internal cohesion (though of a different and more interesting kind than Tekumel offers - Tekumel wins the competition for most realized portrayal of a different place, but Glorantha wins the competition for integration of real-world mythic imagination with fantastic setting, and the gonzo is primarily a vehicle for that here IMO.

Are we talking about the same thing or not?

3e D&D supports gonzo in every way except that the crunchy mechanics place a little more distance between the gonzo idea and its realization than some of us would like. I think.

Cal, I agree that Arduin, Rifts, and SenZar are all gonzo.  I'd add the world of Synnibarr and Cedri from TFT.  Greyhawk and Blackmoor both have gonzo elements.  Both have suffered from differing levels of whitewashing by anti-gonzo 'fans'.

What are your reservations about Lords of Creation?

Pierce, you made one generalization to fast:

If something is facsimilized, there is an audience, who engages in the museum line of thought. There might well be genuine adherents and carriers of a certain mindset.

The fact that there´s Terry pratchett, doesn´t take away the pure and utter seriousness that Peter Jackson put into the movies.

Quote3e D&D supports gonzo in every way except that the crunchy mechanics place a little more distance between the gonzo idea and its realization than some of us would like. I think.

I´d postulate the opposite. If you come to 3.5 character builds with a gonzo mindset, you spare yourself a lot of aesthetic grief.

It´s mostly the AD&D 2nd Edition Ren Fair romanticists that dislike 3.x.